A review of the performance of electrostatically charged rotary atomisers on different crops

Abstract

The collaborative trials described by Arnold et al., 1984a, b, c provided an extensive range of data on the performance of electrostatically charged rotary atomizers on a variety of crops, at different growth stages, using systemic and non‐systemic pesticides. The purpose of this paper is to review the subject to date.

Evaluation of leaf deposit quality between electrostatic and conventional multi-row sprayers in a trellised vineyard

“…In contrast, because an electrostatic sprayer is usually adjusted to spray a lower volume rate than a mist-blower, the resulting treatment losses are reduced; moreover, it improves the homogeneity of distribution and product penetration in the vegetation (Laryea and No, 2003;Jahannama et al, 2005, Maski andDurairaj, 2010;Yang et al, 2015;Mermer et al, 2016, Patel et al, 2017. In addition, this technology is very versatile and has been previously applied to different types of crops (Arnold et al, 1984;Cayley et al, 1984;Abdelbagi and Adams, 1987;Western et al, 1994;Kabashima et al, 1995;Derksen et al, 2007;Gitirana Neto et al, 2015;Tourino et al, 2017;Tavares et al, 2017;Joseph and Bolda, 2018). Pascuzzi and Cerruto (2015) conducted field tests with an electrostatic sprayer in vineyards, finding that this could deliver greater deposits on leaves than a traditional air-assisted sprayer.…”

Overview of Bruchus rufimanus Boheman 1833 (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae): Biology, chemical ecology and semiochemical opportunities in integrated pest management programs

“…Many implementation modalities are possible: lures can be pheromonal and/or kairomonal attractants, while the co-formulation of killing agent (insecticide, sterilant or pathogen) may be arranged in a trap or immediately dropped in the crop (El-Sayed et al, 2009;Smart et al, 2014). To insure a successful implementation, the attractiveness on the insect should not be hampered by the odor of the killing agent (Cayley et al, 1984), and non-chemical killing agents (e.g., entomopathogenic fungi) should be suggested to increase the specificity of the control method and avoid the appearance of resistance mechanism (Roush et al, 1990). Concerning B. rufimanus, an interesting implementation of attract and kill strategy would consist in attracting males and females in devices lured with host plant kairomones (cf.…”

Electrostatic Ground-Rig Spraying: An Overview

“…Although data on postemer gence weed control with the Jumbo electrostatic spinning disc is limited, one result for sprays of isoproturon (3-p-cumenyl-1,1 -dimethylurea) is re produced in Table 5, where no benefit of electro static charging is seen. Cayley et al (8) identified the situations in which electrostatic spraying was better than, equal to, or inferior to conventional spray methods. They also indicated that environmental aspects (less of the charged spray deposited on the ground) and greater work efficiency associated with small volume spraying are important considerations.…”